Hugh Neilson

I think 6eV1P366 third paragraph."You can also apply this effect to Advantages, Adders, Power Frameworks, and parts of a power." is a far cry from "It is fully within RAW to apply a partial limitation to the control cost of a VPP", and my hunt for any further commenary (fully detailed in the thread in the HD forum) didn't find any clarification.
 
I'd interpret RAW to allow it, but that's not the only reasonable interpretation of RAW.  Even if it were, no GM has to allow it, and if Simon's interpretation is right, no GM is prevented from allowing it anyway.
 
Sounds like a negative adder is another option for popping the desired ability into HD at the same price as two VPPs, one limited and the other not.

I'll admit I found the discussions related to Power Frameworks tough to parse through (as seen above).  There are two, so if they are not treated the same, there's little point having a general discussion.  "You can also apply this effect to Advantages, Adders, Power Frameworks, and parts of a power. " does not answer the question of how it would be applied to a Power Framework.Simply being able to have partially limited powers as slots is applying the effect to a Power Framework.
 
You can get the same point cost (maybe out a bit for rounding) using Simon's "two 38 point VPPs" or my "one  50 and one 25 point VPP" model as you'll get with a single 75 point VPP and a partially limited control cost.  And your GM may allow any of the three, disallow all three or modify the pricing.  Whether book-legal, GM permission legal or only legal by GM override, some GMs will allow it in the specific game and others will not.  If they do, it costs the same and plays the same.
 
I asked whether this can be done in HD, and if so how.  Simon answered that HD does not allow it as I described, because it's at best a questionable interpretation of  some pretty uncertain reading in the rules.  He provided a mechanism for getting the construct in HD at the same point costs.  He answered all the questions.
 
Whether you agree with his rules interpretation (and disallow the construct entirely) or disagree (and put it in HD as he set out), it will work exactly the same way in play.  Many GMs don't allow VPPs at all, period.
 
As I don't use HD, I don't often visit this Board, so maybe I misinterpret its purpose.  However, as I understand it, this Board is not about interpreting RAW, or whether any given GM would allow a "GM permission" or "GM override" build, it's about how to get HD to build what you want it to build.  That question is answered, by the SW designer who is also very savvy with the rules.
 
Thanks for both that answer and your reasoning behind it, Simon.

VPPs are often/frequently handled differently from other Power Frameworks, and there are multiple statements in the rules on VPPs that can be interpreted to indicate that Partially Limiting the VPP itself is not something that should be done (game balance, yadda yadda). There's a reason VPPs have a stop sign.
 
But it's moot.
 
If you want to allow a Partially Limited VPP you build it in HD the EXACT SAME WAY you would build any other Partially Limited Power.

Again, make two VPPs as described above - no different from any other Partially Limited Power, assuming your GM allows it.

Practically:
 
 - you can build a multiform with massive doub;lings of forms, or a VPP of Multiforms, and have a sheet for each form, adding new ones at your discretion.
 
 - you can have a Multipower and put a configuration of multipower slots together for various standard forms, adding new ones at your discretion.
 
 - you could even have a VPP of animal powers and put a configuration of multipower slots together for various standard forms, adding new powers and new configurations at your discretion (wait - I need an NND vs Smell Flash Defense for my skunk).
 
All three require advance preparation to avoid slowing down the game.

And people say they have not replicated the comic book experience!

I dislike "gliding only" equating to "gliding faster".  CC appears to remove the GM discretion present in 6e, which I support.  I'd prefer that the system remove the doubled Gide speed (likely meaning  a larger limitation for "only to glide") and provide a limitation for "cannot glide" (probably -1/4).

I dislike "gliding only" equating to "gliding faster".  CC appears to remove the GM discretion present in 6e, which I support.  I'd prefer that the system remove the doubled Gide speed (likely meaning  a larger limitation for "only to glide") and provide a limitation for "cannot glide" (probably -1/4).

What you're missing:  the pool size is REAL cost.  So 50 active becomes 25 real because it's OAF.  You don't reduce the pool *cost*, you get to reduce the pool *size*.  That's why, with the staff, it's 75 real, 100 control, and the staff limitation kicks in at 50/50.  So, any time the control cost exceeds 50...the staff's in play.  Any time the *total* real costs exceed 50, the staff has to be involved.  That's not on one power, that's on all powers in use.  You couldn't have 30 points of defenses and 30 points of Flight w/o the staff because the pool size without it is only 50/50.
 
I love building VPPs that are, let's say, 120/60, with Requires a Skill Roll as a common modifier.  It means the maximum real cost is never over 40, so I can have 3 full-strength powers up and ready simultaneously.  Or make it, let's say, 100/60...60 attack, 60 defense, and 30 special-purpose (e.g. invis) or mid-level movement (flight 24m, 1/2 END) that I can transition to non-combat movement readily enough.  I don't typically need an attack power at non-combat speed.

I'm trying to parse this through the rules.  My gut feel was that it's legal,but I had not dug through it.
 
I'll put my conclusion up here, and show my work below, as I parsed through the book.
 
I'm none the wiser as to whether a partially limited control cost is OK by RAW, "with special GM permission" or "no way".  I am pretty confident it can be read in any of the three ways, and if you read it as "no way", then the answer "Hero Designer does not allow this" makes perfect sense to me.
 
If I wanted such a construct in HD, nothing stops me writing in a 38 (or 50) point VPP with 50 control cost, a 37 (or 25) point VPP with 50 Control Cost, OAF Limitation, and running the character as being able to create up to 50 real points of 50 AP powers lacking the OAF, or up to 75 real points of powers with any AP over 50 subject to the OAF.  The pricing would be the same as the "partially limited" construct.
 
Well, nothing in HD stops me and the pricing would be unchanged - my GM's ruling could certainly stop me or change the pricing, but that applies to everything.
 
RESEARCH FOLLOWS:
 
From 6eV1p366, on Partially-Limited Powers, "You can also apply this effect to Advantages,Adders, Power Frameworks, and parts of a power."  However, the only example is an advantage, so VPPs are not specifically discussed.
 
From 6eV1p401, "A character can have a partially-Limited power in a Power Framework slot, unless the GM objects for some reason. He cannot partly Limit a  framework’s reserve or base cost, however."
 
Page 406 goes on to note "A character may not partially Limit a Multipower reserve unless the GM permits him to. However, he may have a partially-Limited power
as a slot in a Multipower."  That's not covering the VPP, though. 
 
The term "partially limited" does not appear in the VPP section.
 
We know the pool cost can never be modified (p 409). 
 
I can definitely see a read of P 410 that the control cost cannot be partially limited.  It does not explicitly prohibit, but neither does it explicitly permit, this.
 
Coming back to p 401, the term "base cost" is challenging me.  The glossary defines this as referring to "a Characteristic, Skill, or Power at its lowest or most primary level, without any additional modifiers, bonuses, Adders, Advantages, and so forth. For example, “base DEX Roll” means the DEX Roll calculated as (9 + (DEX/5)), without adding any bonuses from Skill Levels or other sources."  "Cost" is undefined.  Given the MP requires special permission to partially limit the reserve or pool, it seems like this at least impacts the pool, but there are no limitations on the VPP pool anyway.  I could see interpreting this to include the control cost, except that it seems not to apply to the slot cost in a MP.
 
The term "base cost" shows up again as the "no advantages or limitations" cost of a power in the term "real cost", a skill (p 61), a few references in Powers, Advantages (none helpful in this context).
 
P 399 notes that you cannot "Link a power or Power Framework to the reserve or base cost of a Power Framework."  I can read this as there being two separate elements, or as "reserve" being synonymous with "base cost".  The same "reserve or base cost" prohibits a partially-advantaged "reserve or base cost" (p 400), but "If a character applies Autofire to the reserve or base cost of a Power Framework, he cannot make an attack involving shots from two or more slots — he can only use the Autofire for only one slot at a time."
 
p 402 notes that "No power in a Multipower can have an Active Point cost greater than the base cost of the Multipower reserve — the amount of Character Points
spent on the reserve before any Advantages or Limitations are applied."  That's no too helpful as the multipower mechanics differ from the VPP pretty substantially, so whether that "base cost" is the "pool" or "control cost" aspect of the MP is less than clear.
 
The term is not used at all in a VPP.
 
At this point, I stopped and concluded above.
 
 
 
 
 
 

HYPOTHESIS: that a Superhero team movie can only succeed with reasonable run time if we already know who most, if not all, of the main characters are from prior movies.
 
EXPERIMENT: Guardians of the Galaxy
 
RESULT:  Hypothesis fails.
 
The Avengers flowed from prior solo movies and it succeeded.  That does not mean prior solo movies are an essential component of a team movie succeeding, any more than it means that only comic book teams made up of heroes with their own previously established features (Justice Society, Justice League, current comic book Guardians of the Galaxy) are doomed to failure.  "The team introduced as a team" has also enjoyed success (Fantastic Four, Doom Patrol, X-Men, original Guardians of the Galaxy).

HYPOTHESIS: that a Superhero team movie can only succeed with reasonable run time if we already know who most, if not all, of the main characters are from prior movies.
 
EXPERIMENT: Guardians of the Galaxy
 
RESULT:  Hypothesis fails.
 
The Avengers flowed from prior solo movies and it succeeded.  That does not mean prior solo movies are an essential component of a team movie succeeding, any more than it means that only comic book teams made up of heroes with their own previously established features (Justice Society, Justice League, current comic book Guardians of the Galaxy) are doomed to failure.  "The team introduced as a team" has also enjoyed success (Fantastic Four, Doom Patrol, X-Men, original Guardians of the Galaxy).

Of course, if you already have a MP (as with the original example in the thread), then you can also just buy additional MP slots, some of which have more base movement but no Adders or Advantages, some of which have some Adders but not others, some of which have various Advantages, etc. as needed. Which slot you use is just a matter of what you're trying to accomplish at the time.

If the SW can't emulate the rules, the issue is the SW.  I'd brute force it like LoneWolf and show the computation in the power description.  But I do my character sheets on Excel these days (combined with a .pdf sheet for in play, if there's a good fillable .pdf option like D&D or Pathfinder sheets).

He's source material from the Legion of Super-Heroes.  A modern GM would laugh a character named Jo Nah who got his powers from being swallowed by a radioactive space-whale out of the game, but as one of the few Legionnaires who was not "an alien from a planet where everyone has similar powers", he was pretty good for the series at the time.
 
 
I ignore that one as it is rarely used in practice, but it is a great fix for Super-Running Speeds outside of combat for that 6 SPD Trained Normal.
 
 
I find lack of a turn mode a pretty powerful benefit of Running at very high speeds.  Noncombat's not that big a deal in most games.  "OK, since Bird-Lad can fly at a sustained speed of 60 mph, he gets to LA from New York several hours before Marathon Maid, who has to slow down more to conserve END.  Of course, they both took hours to arrive, so the villains have long since finished looting the bank, but let it be noted that Bird-Lad arrived sooner."  How many points is that actually worth? 
 
 

I haven't seen anyone mention this (my apologies if I missed it), but the key here is not to change the Power... it's to change the character's SPD.
 
As CC page 137 notes, "In non-combat situations, everyone is assumed to act at SPD 2 at all times, unless the circumstances require them to use their full SPDs." (You can also voluntarily lower your SPD to 2 if desired.) When simply flying long-distance, you're normally going to be acting at SPD 2, not SPD 4.  So the END cost doesn't need to get down to 3 to be sustainable... it only needs to get down to 6.
 
Just let off the gas a bit, fly with a base of 15m instead of 20m, and you're there:
Flight 15m [15]
Position Shift and 8x NCM (+15 CP]
Combat Acc/Dec, NTM, and NGP (+1 Adv.)
= 60 Active Points = 6 END
 
You can fly at this speed indefinitely (about 45 MPH)...
 

There's a ton of options in the books.  Uncontrolled works, I think, but it also normally means the character gets to decide how much, or how little, END to invest on each activation, so that may or may not fit your purposes.  It may still need some tweaking to fit what you're envisioning.

Sounds like Uncontrolled.  Pay the END up front and the ability keeps chugging along until it eats all the END it was given.
 
If you wanted to get fancier, though, we have Continuing Charges - what about extrapolating an advantage from the change in the Charges limitation?

In 6e, Gliding is part of flight and "only to glide" is a limitation.

I've always thought a millionaire HAD $1 million.  The problem is that we tend to conflate "income", which we tax, with "wealth".

I don't believe there are plans to reprint the hardcovers.  One advantage of .pdf's is the ability to word search (more pages makes that higher value).  Note that an "hh" in wordsearch stands in for the HexMan, making it easier to locate a title or subtitle like a power name.

Funny...many threads discussing movies, TV, etc. bemoan the "unrealistic" portrayals of people taking clearly stupid actions given the meta realities of the movie.
 
It seems more like any group of half a dozen or more people all taking rational action in the face of clear and obvious danger would be unrealistic.

Funny...many threads discussing movies, TV, etc. bemoan the "unrealistic" portrayals of people taking clearly stupid actions given the meta realities of the movie.
 
It seems more like any group of half a dozen or more people all taking rational action in the face of clear and obvious danger would be unrealistic.

I don't believe there are plans to reprint the hardcovers.  One advantage of .pdf's is the ability to word search (more pages makes that higher value).  Note that an "hh" in wordsearch stands in for the HexMan, making it easier to locate a title or subtitle like a power name.